Your post shows that Rousseau considered fallibility in the General Will came due to his philosophy since people within the commonwealth always have their self-interests within their minds. To contribute to what you build on General Will, sometimes the will contributes to the political agency by which humanity is influenced. Further, Rousseau can also be seen as reluctant that a government body and a democracy must speak on behalf of the people.
In the first chapter, “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau, Chapter 1). Rousseau believed that full representation only comes when Everyone instills general Will, and everyone has the right to vote. Further, through the process of governance, the General Will might manifest itself in how people vote. However, this is possible only when voters comply with reasonable natural law and become law-abiding.
On property, you show that Rousseau’s attitude on private property brings out man’s animal instinct and self-preservation that can make men do so many cruel acts driven by the need to acquire land. To contribute to your post, wealth and power grow at different poles as people become alienated from each other. Rousseau also argues that property, corruption, and the influence associated with wealth and power are the ultimate reason for all things, misfortunes that make people’s lives difficult lie in wait. With this understanding, it becomes possible for Rousseau to conclude that public wealth increases do not reflect an individual’s growth in wealth.
On general will, your post shows what Rousseau envisions in direct democracy is for every person to have the right to vote and get a representation that allows the law to be made. You establish the argument that fallibility, as seen by Rousseau, correlates to any issue that has the potential to cause problems or hinder things from working. You even went ahead to show that when people were free, the concept of general equivalence was common among men. However, this changed when “the moment one man began to require the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantages to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared…” (Rousseau Chapter 5, part II). Contributing to your post, Rousseau denotes that the unity of people’s will cannot be associated with a single person.
The unity should belong to the people; however, the I in the word unity brings about the selfishness or the simple reduction found in people, which reduces the will of the people to a certain united people. The moment people consider themselves united, they become a single whole, and their sole will revolve around general well-being and common self-preservation. That is why it becomes impossible to reveal valid general will, which Rousseau offers, to be actualized in real life. All people will never have complete interest agreement or entire unanimity, and while this is untrue in real life, Rousseau presents it as evidence.
The consideration for ‘fallibility’ of General Will becomes a choice for Rousseau only when he demands a social contract. However, for every other case, there is a sufficiency in how general votes are submitted. Therefore, Rousseau argues that not all people have to vote unanimously, only that a majority of votes are essential for a law to be adopted.
Reference
Rousseau, J.-J. (2015). The social contract. Milano: Jean Jacques Rousseau.